Instigator / Con

Dynasty

1411

rating

debates

13.64%

won

Topic

#1674

Is gender a social construct?

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 5 votes and with 19 points ahead, the winner is...

PressF4Respect

Tags

Science

Parameters

Publication date: 11.21.2019 05:34AM
Last updated date: 12.09.2019 10:22PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 4
Time for argument: Three days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: Two weeks
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Pro

PressF4Respect

1523

rating

debates

50.0%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

Dynasty

11.21.2019 05:56AM

Con

Introduction
Is gender a social construct? Some people (E.g. sjws, feminists, leftists, etc.) would say yes, it is. But, is this statement true? Is gender really a social construct, or is it biological?

Evidence
Basing on the scientific evidence, the answer is no, gender is not a social construct, but it’s purely biological. While I can agree that certain aspects of gender can be said to be ‘social construct’, such as wearing of pants for example. However, not every difference between men and women are socially constructed, but rather have they origin in human biology. As of matter fact, there are brain difference between male and female brain, which will leave to different brain activity.
Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders

Refutation objections

“Gender and sex are not the same!"

Respond: No one is saying that there the same, it’s just said that their related to each other.

Conclusion
Gender is not a social construct, but it’s biological. In fact, the idea that it’s somehow a social construct, came from a con-artist named John Money.

PressF4Respect

11.21.2019 07:26AM

Pro

Introduction:

I thank Pro (Dynasty) for having this debate today. In my argument, I will be presenting the case that gender is a social construct. However, before doing so, I will provide the definition of gender so that Pro and I are on the same page.

Definitions:

According to Oxford Dictionary [1], the definition of "gender" is:

Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.

Ok... so, according to Oxford Dictionary, gender refers to the social and cultural in nature, not biological. But maybe this is a fluke. Maybe Oxford is an anomaly in this case and other sources will disagree with Oxford. Let's try Merriam-Webster [2]:

2b: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one's sex

Ok. Merriam-Webster expands on this definition [3]:

The words sex and gender have a long and intertwined history. In the 15th century gender expanded from its use as a term for a grammatical subclass to join sex in referring to either of the two primary biological forms of a species, a meaning sex has had since the 14th century; phrases like "the male sex" and "the female gender" are both grounded in uses established for more than five centuries. In the 20th century sex and gender each acquired new uses. Sex developed its "sexual intercourse" meaning in the early part of the century (now its more common meaning), and a few decades later gender gained a meaning referring to the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex, as in "gender roles."

Ok, so ever since gender acquired meanings different from each other, gender refers to the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits the same way that gender roles do. But what does this mean? Merriam-Webster explains further:

Among those who study gender and sexuality, a clear delineation between sex and gender is typically prescribed, with sex as the preferred term for biological forms, and gender limited to its meanings involving behavioral, cultural, and psychological traits. In this dichotomy, the terms male and female relate only to biological forms (sex), while the terms masculine/masculinity, feminine/femininity, woman/girl, and man/boy relate only to psychological and sociocultural traits (gender).

Ok, so according to Merriam-Webster, in the modern sense of the terms: sex = biological, gender = psychological and sociocultural.

What about dictionary.com? [4]

either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated by social and cultural roles and behavior.

Ok, same thing. But maybe I'm just arguing from semantics. Maybe my opponent is still right, that from a medical perspective, gender is biological. Let's see what the World Health Organization has to say [5]:

Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men. It varies from society to society and can be changed.

Well... maybe the WHO is just a leftist, feminist, SJW organization funded and manipulated by the Clintons and Rothschilds. What about expert testimonies from psychologists Britta N. Torgrimson and Christopher T. Minson? [6]

These words have specifically different etymologies and meanings. In the most basic sense, sex is biologically determined and gender is culturally determined.

Ok, so these psychologists also say that gender is culturally determined? What about others? Say, Stanford Medicine? [7]

And an increasing body of research suggests that the influence of a person’s biological sex on their health is just the tip of the iceberg. Hovering just beneath the surface is a mixture of behaviors, expectations, cultural norms and attitudes that together define a given individual’s gender.

They agree too? Well, I guess there isn't much more to say.

Conclusion:

I have shown, from a variety of sources (from dictionaries to psychologists to a medical journal), that gender (in its modern sense) is defined as a social construct, not a biological one. I will now allow my opponent to rebut the arguments I have laid forth.

Round 2

Dynasty

11.21.2019 07:36AM

Con

I said gender and sex related to each other. I never said that their the same.

PressF4Respect

11.23.2019 12:41AM

Pro

Introduction:

For this round, I will provide rebuttals to Pro's main points.

Rebuttals:

In Pro's argument, he confuses the terms sex and gender. They are different terms describing different aspects.

Gender, as defined by the sources provided last round, can be summarized as the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women .*

*This exact definition is provided by the American Psychological Association [1], but all of the sources previously cited have the same idea in mind.

Sex, on the other hand, is defined as:

Oxford [2]:

Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.

Merriam-Webster [3]:

Either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures.

Dictionary.com [4]:

Either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated with reference to the reproductive functions.

Conclusion:

In all of these examples, one thing is clear: Sex refers to the biological aspects of male and female (described by reproductive functions) while gender refers to the social aspects that society imposes on men and women. In short, they are completely different concepts. Sex is biological, gender is social.

Round 3

Dynasty

11.25.2019 08:39AM

Con

In Pro's argument, he confuses the terms sex and gender.

I never said that their the same. In fact, if you read on what I just said, you would know that I said that they are related to each other.

PressF4Respect

11.25.2019 02:53PM

Pro

I never said that their the same. In fact, if you read on what I just said, you would know that I said that they are related to each other.

Yes... they are related, but not the same. They both relate to men and women, but sex refers to the biological aspects of the differences between the two, while gender refers to the social aspects. That is the entire crux of my argument.

Extend all other points.

Round 4

Dynasty

11.25.2019 09:55PM

Con

Yes... they are related, but not the same.

Ok, good.

PressF4Respect

11.25.2019 10:22PM

Pro

I rest my case.

Zaradi

12.07.2019 10:23PM

#15

-->

@PressF4Respect

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

Literally your entire case.

PressF4Respect

12.07.2019 09:23PM

#14

-->

@Zaradi

How so?

Zaradi

12.07.2019 08:14PM

#13

-->

@PressF4Respect

You got so lucky that there wasnt really any debate to be had. Your case was abysmal.

Username

12.03.2019 11:59PM

#12

-->

@Dynasty

In the end it doesn't matter

Dynasty

12.03.2019 11:56PM

#11

-->

@Username

I said that they are related to each other.

TheRealNihilist

11.27.2019 12:53PM

#10

-->

@Dynasty

And I saw one sentence answers. If you are not actually bothered to spend the time to present an argument for the following rounds don't bother.

Walrus

11.26.2019 11:42PM

-->

@Dynasty

goo goo ga joob

Dynasty

11.26.2019 11:30PM

-->

@Walrus

Are we new here?

Walrus

11.26.2019 11:17PM

rubbish and a real scientist will say so social science isn't science

Dynasty

11.26.2019 11:03PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

I said "However, not every difference between men and women are socially constructed, but rather have they origin in human biology."

TheRealNihilist

11.26.2019 03:44PM

Error

Meaning if Con accepts Pro's definitions Pro would have conceded the entire debate to the other side
Even though this is well weird of making an argument as in defining yourself to win, Pro's appeal to authority is better than contradictory arguments.
With nothing to rebut from Pro he had nothing to say to Con apart from giving a response to the one line comments

Fix

Meaning if Con accepts Pro's definitions Con would have conceded the entire debate to the other side
Even though this is well a weird way of making an argument as in defining yourself to win, Pro's appeal to authority is better than contradictory arguments.
With nothing to rebut for Pro he had nothing to say to Con apart from giving a response to the one line comments

TheRealNihilist

11.26.2019 03:40PM

-->

@Dynasty

If you actually don't care about debating, don't bother creating debates. It is that simple.

Nemiroff

11.26.2019 02:59PM

-->

@Dynasty

You keep repeating that like a mantra. I get that.

If they are related, they are not the necessarily the same, therefore why cant 1 of them be a social construct?

Can you connect the "they are related" back to the topic?

Dynasty

11.25.2019 11:45PM

-->

@Nemiroff

I said they are related to each other.

Nemiroff

11.25.2019 10:01AM

-->

@Dynasty

If sex is biological
And you admit gender is not the same
Then how do you conclude that gender must be biological?

Couldnt it be a social construct that is related to a biological feature, but not the same as it?

oromagi

12.08.2019 09:03PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

This debate hinged on the definition of gender as social construct. If CON was going to win, CON really needed to get to those definitions first and separate social contstruct as an ordinary definiton for gender. Once PRO show that gender=social contstruct in any ordinary sense, PRO had little defense. CON single source did not particularly back CON's conclusion while PRO's serial definitions locked the case down.

Trent0405

12.07.2019 04:51AM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Con stated that gender is biological, not psychological. Pro excellently offers several definitions from reputable sources that state that gender is socially constructed and not biological as Con claims. Con's response to this merely states that sex and gender are related but not the same, this doesn't necessarily support his case. Pro then offers some definitions of sex that demonstrate that sex is biological, while gender is philological and socially constructed. Con then just restates his R2 for the remaining rounds where they establish that sex and gender aren't the same, but related. Again this doesn't prove that gender is not socially constructed, Pro has already established by using definitions that sex is biological while gender is socially constructed.

At the end of the day, Pro offers sources which establish that sex is biological while gender is socially constructed. Con never really is able to contest this.

Username

12.03.2019 07:23PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Con outlines that genders have biological difference and thus are not social constructs. Pro explains that gender is socially constructed, whereas sex is not, and thus Con is referring to sex and not gender. This works directly against Con's resolution, but Con opts not to defend his resolution but rather to clarify that he did agree that sex and gender are different. By failing to defend or argue for his resolution, Con essentially concedes the debate, and thus Pro gets full argument points.

Barney

11.26.2019 11:55PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

No no contest was put forward once pro offered his opening.

Pro proved that by every definition it's the social side (ergo, socially constructed), which could have varying roles within different cultures. While con's case that some aspects of identification stem from biology stand, those aspects seem to be referred to as sex, rather than by gender.

Sources were overwhelmingly in favor of pro. A key one being WHO, which confirmed pro's premise, ensuring it was not a mere assertion (technically every source was the same, but this one had the greatest authority to me).

TheRealNihilist

11.26.2019 03:38PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Pro says "no, gender is not a social construct, but it’s purely biological." then straight after this says "While I can agree that certain aspects of gender can be said to be ‘social construct’"

He has made contradictory points.
-It is purely biological.
-Some aspects are socially constructed.

Saying purely is another word for entirely meaning you have no room for something else.

"As of matter fact, there are brain difference between male and female brain, which will leave to different brain activity.
Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders"

I guess this is an argument but this undermined by the previous point. On this own it isn't even a good one given the link states "Scientists have discovered approximately 100 gender differences in the brain". I thought was providing a point for gender not being a social construct as in there is male and female but here we have 100 gender differences in the brain.

This is the only arguments made by Con so yeah.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Pro decided to lay out definitions of the debate. The problem with this is that if both people agree on the definition then there is nothing to debate about in this debate. Meaning if Con accepts Pro's definitions Pro would have conceded the entire debate to the other side. Even though this is well weird of making an argument as in defining yourself to win, Pro's appeal to authority is better than contradictory arguments.

Pro gave dictionaires definitions from Oxford, Merriam-Webster, WHO and Standford medicine which I consider to be more than sufficient to demonstrate that he didn't use site that are not really popular to win by definition.

Both did give rebuttals but neither of them posted anything relevant to what the other person says. Con decided to not rebut the main point as in popular websites are defining it my way instead says "I said gender and sex related to each other. I never said that their the same.". Pro on the other hand decided to talk about sex and gender when that wasn't necessary. I highlighted the problems with Con's points which was all he needed to rebut the claims brought forward but he didn't instead talked about the difference between sex and gender. The debate was about "Is gender a social construct?" not if sex and gender are the same. Both of them after gave conjecture which was the fault of Con. With nothing to rebut from Pro he had nothing to say to Con apart from giving a response to the one line comments

Defining yourself to win by using popular sources is better than contradictory statements made through the very next words Con typed and the link Con used to support Con's side.

Pro wins the argument vote because of this.